Midas Multispecialty Hospital Private Limited, Nagpur, Thr. Director, Shrikant v. Mukewar vs Union of India, Thr. the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and Ors.

¶1

109.WP.2480.2026

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2480 OF 2026

¶5

Midas Multispecialty Hospital Pvt. Ltd, thr. its Director Dr. Shrikant V. Mukewar Vs.

¶6

Union of India & Ors.

¶7

______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Mr. Akshay A. Naik, Senior Advocate a/b. Mr. Rohan R. Deo, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. K.N. Shukul, DSGI with Mr. Gaurav Khatwani, Advocate for Respondent No.1. -------------------------------

¶10

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATE : 26.03.2026

¶11

At the outset, Mr. Akshay Naik, learned Senior Counsel, seeks leave of this Court to substitute the memo of the petition.

¶12

Leave is granted. The substitution be carried out forthwith.

¶13

Heard Mr. Akshay Naik, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rohan R. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. K.N. Shukul, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶14

The contention is that the petitioner is a tenant of respondent No.3. The said contention is substantiated by an agreement of leave and licence dated 1^st June, 2011. The aforesaid agreement is at record page No.23 (Annexure-A). Though the leave and licence agreement was executed on 1^st June, 2011, the tenure thereof was from 1^st June, 2011 to 31^st May, 2021. However, Mr. Akshay Naik, learned Senior Counsel, has invited our attention to the statement made on

¶15

109.WP.2480.2026

¶16

2/3

¶17

oath on behalf of the petitioner in paragraph 9 of the petition, which reads thus:

¶18

“9. ...It is further submitted that although under the leave and licence agreement, the petitioner had a right to occupy the suit premises up to 31.05.2021, the petitioner has continued to possess and occupy the property as a tenant under an oral agreement with the Respondent No.3. Since the proclamation of sale has been issued on identical ground of non-payment of dues, the petitioner is again approaching this Hon’ble Court as it apprehends that the petitioner is likely to be dispossessed either by the respondents or by the subsequent purchaser without following the due process of law...”

¶19

Mr. Akshay Naik, learned Senior Counsel, submits that respondent No.2 – the Tax Recovery Officer, Income Tax Department, Nagpur, in order to recover dues outstanding against respondent No.3, who is the landlord of the petitioner, has issued a proclamation of sale in respect of the tenanted premises in question, and the said auction is scheduled on 30^th March, 2026.

¶20

The petitioner is a tenant and has nothing to do with the dues of respondent No.3 or with the recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent No.2. The petitioner is only apprehensive that if the auction is conducted on 30^th March, 2026 and the tenanted premises owned by respondent No.3 are sold, the subsequent purchaser may initiate proceedings against the petitioner for eviction and for recovery of possession of the property in question.

¶21

In view of the above, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 9^th April, 2026.

¶22

109.WP.2480.2026

¶23

3/3

¶24

Mr. K.N. Shukul, learned DSGI, waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1.

¶25

Petitioner (s) is/are permitted to serve remaining respondent (s) by private mode of service, in addition to regular mode of service and shall file an affidavit of service by next date, failing which the petitioner (s) shall deposit costs of Rs.500/-(Rs. Five hundred) in the ‘Public Welfare Account’ bearing No. 129712010001014, IFSC Code No. UBIN0812978 with Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

¶26

Office objections, if any, shall be removed on or before next date.

¶27

In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the tenanted premises without following due process of law.

¶28

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶29

Vijaykumar

¶30

Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/03/2026 10:40:19

Midas Multispecialty Hospital Private Limited, Nagpur, Thr. Director, Shrikant v. Mukewar v Union of India, Thr. the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Midas Multispecialty Hospital Private Limited, Nagpur, Thr. Director, Shrikant v. Mukewar v Union of India, Thr. the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Late Radhikabai Meghe Mahila Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur, Thr. Secretary and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Home Department Mumbai and Others vs Prasanna Madhukar Shouche and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited, Branch at Malkapur Thr. Authorized Officer, Amit Ranjan Singh Sengar vs the Recovery Officer, Ahinsa Urban Credit Co-Op. Society Maryadit, Malkapur and Ors.

Arvind Laxminarayan Jaiswal vs the Minister of State Excise, Maha. State, Mumbai

Yashwant Vitthalrao Patil vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mumbai and Ors.

Altaf Ahmad vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Others